Only Dusty can destroy Jay Bruce

by Ur on Mar 4, 2008 1:16 PM EST

http://frontier.cincinnati.com/blogs/redsinsider/2008/03/bruce-on-bruce.asp

Dusty sure doesn't waste time, does he? Instead of giving Bruce a legit shot -- the Reds go out and get retread Corey Patterson, giving Bruce about a 0% chance of breaking camp with the team.

Bruce is universally considered to be the top prospect in baseball -- what more does he have to prove in AAA?

So, will Bruce be able to overcome Dusty's long and storied track-record of destroying prospects, not to mention Bailey, Votto, and Cuerto? I feel bad for Reds fans...

Tweet Comment 45 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

i hear armando rios

is in camp too. not sure if its official yet or not, jus sayin...

classy move Belichek...Quitter

by jrose643 on Mar 4, 2008 1:21 PM EST reply actions

Blame Dusty?

Are all Red fans going to be this lazy while Dusty is in town?

Dusty is the manager not the GM. Are you guys going to blame Dusty if you order a hotdog and it sucks to? The guy can only screw so much up.

by Josh @ Minor League Ball on Mar 4, 2008 1:24 PM EST reply actions

Yes, yes I am...

Do you honestly believe that Reds GM Wayne Krivsky brought in Patterson and Hairston Jr., both of whom played for Dusty by some sort of cosmic coincidence.

Or do you think it's more likely that Dusty requested their services despite the fact that the best prospect in baseball is ready, willing, and able to assume the position?

Reds fans -- welcome to your nightmare...

by Ur on Mar 4, 2008 1:37 PM EST up reply actions

hmmm

Hairston, Rios, C Patt, all former Dusty players. But I'm sure this was all Krivskys idea

classy move Belichek...Quitter

by jrose643 on Mar 4, 2008 1:45 PM EST up reply actions

Who was hired to run the franchise, Dusty Baker or Wayne Krivsky? If all Wayne is going to do is bring in Dusty's guys, at Dusty's request, then the Reds should of saved some cash and hired Dusty to do both jobs.

How would Dusty now Bruce is ready, willing, and able to assume the position? Wasn't Dusty doing Espn games last year? I doubt he was following the exploits of a young Bruce. I would think the GM would need to bring the new manager up to speed on who is ready and who isn't. I really doubt Dusty walked in and said, "I don't care what you say about this Bruce kid Wayne, I want corey patterson." Come on.

by Josh @ Minor League Ball on Mar 4, 2008 3:05 PM EST up reply actions

Batman

I misread that as "I don't care what you say about this Bruce Wayne kid, I want Corey patterson."

Dusty probably wouldn't like Bruce Wayne. Batman always struck me as the patient sort at the plate. Now, Superman on the other hand...

by GuyinNY on Mar 4, 2008 3:56 PM EST up reply actions

i haven't finished reading this thread yet

but DING DING DING...Winner!

classy move Belichek...Quitter

by jrose643 on Mar 4, 2008 9:53 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Superman

Superman is definitely a toolsy prospect.

"That 'stache is trash" -- Walt Clyde Frazier

by McLovin on Mar 6, 2008 7:55 AM EST up reply actions

It's not uncommon

for a manager to tell his GM, "go out and get me this guy," especially when it doesn't take a lot of resources. It is possible Baker specifically asked for Patterson.

But let's be honest here. None of us know what went on in the acquisition of Corey Patterson.

by elrey34 on Mar 4, 2008 8:46 PM EST up reply actions

As a Chicagoan with no attachment to the Cubs

I was thoroughly mesmerized by how inept Dusty is.

He is notorious for bringing in "his guys" and Patterson and Hairston are the new Macias and Neifi. How is criticizing a horrible manager for doing horrible things "lazy" anyway?

I'm actually surprised a soft media town like Cincy is giving Dusty any crap for anything. I'm convinced he went there only because he knew he wouldn't get the (much deserved) scrutiny he got here in Chicago. Or is it just the intelligent fans who already realize what a turd he is?

by thejd44 on Mar 5, 2008 1:50 PM EST up reply actions

Service Clock

It's probably a good move to leave Bruce in the minors and get an extra year of his prime before he hits free agency.

No GM would admit that they are making moves for that reason, but it's a smart move.

Having Patterson around means that you can keep Bruce in the minors until June and not really hurt the major league team just in case the Reds are surprised contenders.

by dkdc on Mar 4, 2008 1:25 PM EST reply actions

teams lacking a CF

should give the Reds a call and see if they want to trade their reliever / scrappy utility guy for Bruce !

by RollingWave on Mar 4, 2008 1:28 PM EST reply actions

Where's Neifi Perez when you need him?

by ajohnst1 on Mar 4, 2008 1:48 PM EST up reply actions

Isn't he suspended for another 3423524356 games?

by thejd44 on Mar 5, 2008 1:51 PM EST up reply actions

Hairston Jr.

I've heard Jerry is getting a hard look too.

Ted Williams: .406

by bodyiq on Mar 4, 2008 1:32 PM EST reply actions

HAHAHA

Hilarious.

Poor Reds fans.

by Yakker on Mar 4, 2008 1:40 PM EST reply actions

well i guess this is proof that im the only one

...who stil believes Corey is going to be a star .... damn im patient

by daveh33 on Mar 4, 2008 2:08 PM EST reply actions

Response

Crazy talk. Bruce is all of 21 and even his biggest backers admit that he's got plenty of things to work on.

Reds fans should be thrilled that they signed Patterson - a plus glove guy in CF whose homer-happy approach at the plate should play well in GAB - rather than being forced to make a difficult decision on whether to push Bruce to the majors on the basis of the opinions of fantasy baseball players and a small statistical sample size. I would expect Bruce to hit well in the spring - guys are just trying to get their mechanics ironed out and are trying to throw strikes, which is awesome for a guy with Bruce's profile (fast bat with average strike zone judgment). Come the regular season, it wouldn't be a shocker to see him get exploited regularly in the majors, especially by southpaws.

As it is, the Reds can feel good about taking the pressure off Bruce to make the major league team, send him to AAA, and if he's hitting well 1-2 months into the year, then you get him into the major league lineup. Then you've got Bruce feeling confident and in a good groove at the plate, as opposed to sticking him out there as the hot-shot phenom who has never struggled all the way to Opening Day '08 in the majors. Which situations puts less pressure on the kid to succeed and gives him the best chance to reach his potential?

The way you're putting this, the Reds really have no way to win this one in the public eye. Either they aggressively push Bruce to the majors, where he's a .220/.280/.340 April away from being "Bust?" material on minorleagueball.com, or they send him to the minors and get called morons for trying to protect the development of one of their most valuable assets.

by mrkupe on Mar 4, 2008 2:09 PM EST reply actions

+3.14

mmmmm...pie

by daveh33 on Mar 4, 2008 2:11 PM EST up reply actions

+1

I think this is a wise move. Sure Bruce did well in AAA last season... in 187 at bats. There is no need to rush him yet. Let him get in another couple hundred at bats in AAA before calling him up if he is ready.

Going by everything I have read about Dusty, players absolutely love him. He seems to be a real "player coach". Sure he is mostly to blame for Prior's failing career (and I am a big Prior fan), but he trusts his players to get the job done. They respect him for that.

Dusty may not be popular among fantasy players and fans, but he has had some success in the majors, so he is not a complete idiot. Just handing over the starting CF job to a kid with less than 250 at bats above High A... now that would be the mistake. Bruce will be up this year guaranteed... barring injury. Don't crucify Dusty for making sure the kid is ready.

"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile

by Boxkutter on Mar 4, 2008 2:23 PM EST up reply actions

Good points, except...

I highly doubt Dusty is holding Bruce back (if indeed Bruce fails to make the team) because "he wants to make sure the kid is ready."

If Dusty plays a role in Bruce getting sent to AAA, it will be so he can play his old favorites like Patterson (whom he'll probably bat leadoff...Patterson is real good at not clogging the basepaths), not so that Bruce will develop.

In other words, Dusty may end up making the right decision, but he'll be making it for all the wrong reasons.

by ajohnst1 on Mar 4, 2008 2:42 PM EST up reply actions

-1

He is a complete idiot.

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

by WayneCampbell05 on Mar 4, 2008 9:34 PM EST up reply actions

My thoughts Exactly

by Dfarth on Mar 4, 2008 2:24 PM EST up reply actions

I should Add

That the contract that Patterson signed is an important piece. I don't know the incentives involved - but the Reds can't be on the hook for much. There are four scenarios that I see as possibilities:

Patterson plays well, Bruce plays well - Bruce forces himself into the Reds plans and the Reds are able to trade the cheap Patterson for something.
Patterson plays poorly, Bruce plays well - Bruce still gets some extra seasoning at AAA and takes over for Patterson after a few months.
Patterson plays well, Bruce plays poorly - Obviously, this will be a good move for the short term. In the long term, Patterson will either be traded when Bruce is ready or maybe the Reds get a comp pick for him if he leaves next year.
Both Patterson and Bruce play poorly - The signing of Patterson still didn't hurt the Reds in this scenario.

All four of those scenarios are ones where the signing of Patterson did not hurt the Reds. The only way that it does hurt them is if A. Bruce somehow takes the demotion poorly and regresses because of it (which tells me he is too much of a headcase to really be successful anyways) or B. The Reds stick with Patterson throughout despite the fact that Bruce is destroying AAA. To me, both of those seem unlikely - and neither can be predicted at this point.

by Dfarth on Mar 4, 2008 2:30 PM EST up reply actions

+1

Perfect answer.

by journeymen on Mar 5, 2008 10:35 AM EST up reply actions

Exactly right

The Reds are being condemned for signing an experienced center fielder to a minor league contract.

by Yoda @ Minor League Ball on Mar 5, 2008 11:02 AM EST up reply actions

I'd say #2 could very easily harm the Reds

assuming they think they can win the division this year, and all indications are that they very much do think that. If the Reds give Patterson two months of playing time where he puts up an OPS+ of 80 while Bruce dominates AAA and could've been in the majors putting up an OPS+ of, say, 110-120, that's gonna have an impact on the team's success this year. In a vacuum, this is a good move by the Reds, but knowing the organization and how they're likely to use Patterson (starting in CF and leading off), it's an awful move that's going to hurt the team's chances of winning anything this year. If the team is smart enough to use Patterson off the bench and actually take advantage of his strengths (namely, running fast on the basepaths and in the outfield), then Patterson is likely to be more valuable than, say, Norris Hopper. But absent that, it's the Reds intentionally putting a hole in their lineup for a significant portion of the season.

by Geki on Mar 5, 2008 12:37 PM EST up reply actions

This is an excellent move

as long as they don't bat him leadoff. Which, of course they will absolutely do.

They'll also start Hatteburg at 1B and bat him second.

and they'll also bat Dunn 5th, where his "clogging the bases" will be a self fulfilling prophecy since there will be no to knock him in unless you are really counting on Encarncion.

So I agree this is a good move, but I bet it was a good move by accident.

They should put Bruce in AAA and fine him if he puts the ball in play with less than a two ball count. Leaving him in AAA for a couple months make incredible sense from both a developmental and financial standpoint.

by Galt on Mar 4, 2008 3:59 PM EST up reply actions

+1

I do believe Bruce could use additional seasoning in AAA, if only to ensure he gets off to a strong start. Moreover, by waiting a few months, the Reds will be able to add another year of control to Bruce. Generally, I'm against this sort of move, but assuming Patterson does make the roster in a prominent role, I honestly don't think he's all that different from what Jay Bruce would be initially.

If Bruce is absolutely tearing it up in AAA at the end of the April, you can rest assured that he will be up soon. A little bit of extra AAA should help, as he's only 21 and hasn't had too much experience above A ball.

Put plainly, this move makes sense.

by GuyinNY on Mar 4, 2008 4:02 PM EST up reply actions

Uhm...

Is anyone actually looking into this? Or just blindly following what the OP said?

For one thing, the link posted has nothing to do with Patterson.

And Patterson and Hairston were signed to MINOR LEAGUE DEALS. Giving Bruce much more than a 0% chance of breaking camp.

by Lt Melmo on Mar 4, 2008 2:10 PM EST reply actions

Nothing To Prove?

Bruce has <300 AB's above A ball. He could stand some more AAA seasoning before handing him the keys.

by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 4, 2008 2:50 PM EST reply actions

Bruce

He doesn't have a chance at making the roster. Since day 1 Dusty Baker has been setting it up with comments. Early on when asked about Bruce he responded with 'Norris Hopper hits the ball real hard' (you know, the guy with 4 HR in over 3000 career at bats).

Asked who would bat leadoff if Hopper or Freel weren't starting (both of whom play Jay Bruce's position), Dusty said he hopes one of them is playing every day.

He then goes out after Bruce has a leg issue (which none the less, he is running full speed 2 days later with nothing wrong at all) Baker makes up some fantasy that Bruce has had leg problems already in his career. Jay went to his office and explained to him that isn't true. He missed 4 games last year with a hamstring issue and 1 game in Dayton with a bruised leg.

Baker has been setting it up since the beginning. I don't think its going to hurt Jay at all to spend some time in AAA, but I do think that its rather ridiculous that he isn't likely to be given a chance at all in the eyes of the Reds manager.

http://www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Mar 4, 2008 2:58 PM EST reply actions

Dusty's gone!

His preferential treatment of veterans will get him fired, just like it has in San Francisco and Chicago. The only problem is that the poor Reds fans, myself included, have to put up with another year of losing because of this decision!

by Jim Wiser on Mar 4, 2008 3:36 PM EST reply actions

Fired

After losing in the world series, no less. As odd as that was, I was still a fan of firing him.

by marcello on Mar 4, 2008 4:41 PM EST up reply actions

Actually

He wasn't fired in Chicago. His contract ended and was let go.

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

by WayneCampbell05 on Mar 4, 2008 9:36 PM EST up reply actions

who?

what amazing prospects did dusty not play in San Fran and Chicago? Pedro Feliz?

the italicized comments down here are really gay

by IHateMitchMustain on Mar 5, 2008 12:56 PM EST up reply actions

Fucking tired topic

Every time there is Jay bruce or Reds news is the same clowns turn this into Bash baker site?

Yawn.......

by ScottAZ on Mar 4, 2008 3:44 PM EST reply actions

yup yup

As a Cub fan I wasn't a fan of the guy, but it is rather silly how fans blame him for everything. Not sure how a players manager can be so hated by fans. You would think a players manager would be a fan favorite as well.

by Josh @ Minor League Ball on Mar 4, 2008 5:55 PM EST up reply actions

re

I think it started after he pulled Russ Ortiz in Game Six. The supposed reason the Giants lost the WS.

With the Cubs he gets blamed for the demise of Wood and Prior. Cubs fans are vocal and many, so this was magnified on a larger scale than say a Lou Pinella burning out a young Dave Fleming, Eric Hansen, Roger Salked, Bob Wolcot and whoever else you want to blame him for.

Thing is, if he would have retired after the 2002 season, he would have probably gone down as one of the greatest and most beloved managers of all time.

by ScottAZ on Mar 6, 2008 10:06 AM EST up reply actions

Bruce would benefit from age-gate

by parrot11 on Mar 4, 2008 3:54 PM EST reply actions

"Long and storied"

If there is indeed such thing as "Dusty's long and storied track-record of destroying prospects" I'd like to hear about it. Give me a list of 5 top 100 prospects from any major publication(s) prospect rankings that he has supposedly destroyed.

You can't. Long and storied my ass. Nothing more than blind, ignorant Dusty bashing.

I also agree that this is probably a good thing in the overall scheme of things, as I've said on this site before (just last week I think).

by slurve on Mar 4, 2008 6:19 PM EST reply actions

Addendum

"Dusty won't play prospects" is what I assume the OP was reffering to.

by slurve on Mar 4, 2008 6:21 PM EST up reply actions

It's just a minor league deal

and I think more time in the minors would do Bruce some good.

Todd Frazier for President

by FrazierFan on Mar 5, 2008 12:25 AM EST reply actions

....and Joey Votto (and Adam Dunn)

Dusty on Votto, Dunn and aggressiveness

Dusty Baker wants his hitters to hit. He likes aggressive hitters. He was talking about Joey Votto and finished with this:

"I really, really hate the called third strike. I hate that. You're guess and you ain't ready to hit."

Does the aggressive stuff go for Adam Dunn, too? "Like I said, I don't like called third strikes. Dunn's not a kid. He's not old, but he ain't a kid. I bet you he gets better. He's from Texas, right? There's not a cow in Texas if he don't get better."

"He wants to get better. Barry Bonds he always told me Dunn would be one of the best around. Comes to hitting, Barry's got a pretty good idea."

On Votto: "He needs to swing some more. I talked to him about that. Strikeouts aren't the only criteria. I'd like to see him more aggressive."

"A lot of this on-base percentage is taking away the aggressiveness of some young kids. Most of the time you've got to put handcuffs on a young to keep him from swinging."

by Galt on Mar 6, 2008 1:23 PM EST reply actions